| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Hybrid, "Just because it is in the Bible does not make it so/true." How do you know if something is true? What is truth as you see it? Are you saying that God, the eternal, omniscient, omnipotent logos and locus of good, the creator of the universe could not have revealed or inspired the books of the Bible to their authors such that they accurately conveyed truth? | ||
| Crusty |
"What is Truth?" - Pontius Pilate ca 33 AD | ||
| Torquehd |
The "days" in Creation could not have been our days, since the Earth did not yet exist, and the Sun by which we measure our days also did not exist, until they were created each in their turn. Read it again; Genesis specifically says that there was day and night, morning and evening. That is exactly a calendar day. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. I don't know how there was evening and morning as we know it without the sun, but the bible says it and I believe it. It's so much easier to just believe that God meant what he said, than to try to come up with some complex theory that's not bible just to justify a man made theory. | ||
| Torquehd |
Hybrid - This might help, it's quick to watch. This is the view point I have come to adopt after growing up reading NIV and ESV. Now I don't tell folks not to read other versions, but I believe KJV is best; it is perfect. | ||
| Alfau |
Language evolves.. The Evolutionists will love that. Also not only English speaking are legible. If your knocking (Mathew seven verse seven) mt7 ![: ]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/ohwell.gif) the door will be open to you. http://www.biblestudytools.com/compare-translation s/} | ||
| Alfau |
Lessons on how to block truth. Knock and the door will be open to you. Mt7:seven | ||
| Alfau |
The Knocking part is relevant. You knock and the answers will come, listen for the knock! | ||
| Alfau |
Mt 7 Type mt 7:seven and see what happens The dark side is at work. | ||
| Alfau |
. (Message edited by alfau on December 01, 2016) | ||
| Alfau |
Blake, address this stupidity. | ||
| Alfau |
Don't tell me; Your a Mason or Illuminati. | ||
| Blake |
What's up Alf? Smiley shortcut code causing you trouble? Try adding a space between the affected characters. | ||
| Blake |
Mat 7: 7  | ||
| Alfau |
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Mat+7%3A+7&ie=u tf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Z9Y_WK uoNNTN8genzLygCQ | ||
| Alfau |
. (Message edited by alfau on December 01, 2016) | ||
| Alfau |
Needless to say, if your interested, Knock and the answers will come. God said that not me. It's for you to sort out the fakes. Building killing machines ain't a reference. | ||
| Pwnzor |
That is exactly a calendar day. What calendar? How many hours in those days? Doesn't make any sense, and no need to stretch logic to arrive at this. I'm with you, I believe what God says. I just don't believe he said that a "day" is 24 hours. Time as we know it is an invention of man. We have to have some quantifiable description for the passage of segments of time that is uniform so that we can understand each other. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I just avoid the topic. I succeed most days.  | ||
| Torquehd |
It still goes back to this: the only reason to say that a day is not a day is to justify the theories of scientists whose agenda is to prove that their theories are right and the Bible is wrong. The only reason that anyone thinks the earth is billions of years old is because scientists say so. The only reason they say so is because if macro evolution were possible, it would require stupidly long amounts of time for us to arrive at fully functioning humans. The whole old earth teaching is all based on disproving the Creation story. | ||
| Hootowl |
"The only reason that anyone thinks the earth is billions of years old is because scientists say so" False. I don't need a scientist to tell me what is intuitively obvious through simple math and observation. Refer to the speed of light and the distance of astrological bodies. Geological layers. Carbon dating (no it's not 100% accurate, but even if the margin of error was 50% - it isn't - that still puts the earth well past the 6000 year mark). | ||
| Hootowl |
The books of the old testament were stories passed down orally and then eventually written down. Ever play the telephone game? Details get lost and changed. Is it fundamentally true? Did God create the universe? I believe so. Did it happen in the time frame or manner described in an account written buy a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy + n...I do not believe so. In the hitchhiker's guide, when Earth 2 was being constructed (the first Earth was destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass. The rats were not pleased, but bypasses have to be built, don't they?) they went through the trouble of burying fossilized dinosaur bones. I very much doubt that God would try to trick us like that. | ||
| Blake |
Jesse, If you go looking there are some pretty powerful Christian apologetics that explain very well how and why the days referenced in the Genesis creation account are not to be understood as literal days. Darwinian evolution has a host of its own problems. People calling it "settled science" chief among them. Are they still breeding fruit flies looking to create a new, more complex species? To me the whole Neo-Darwinian evolution narrative goes something like the following: 1) Look, viruses and bacteria quickly evolve to defeat drugs and immune response! 2) And we have fossil records that we can string together to make it appear like macro-evolution happened, just pay no attention to any contradictory scientific data. 3) Listen to Richard Dawkins instead, well, except that time when someone asked him for scientific evidence of a mutation that increased the amount of information in a genome (DNA). 4) Anyone who questions the likely hood of abiogenesis or Darwinian evolution is a kook and a serious danger to society, and they must not be allowed faculty positions in academia and must not be allowed to publish in academic journals. That last one tells me all I need to know. Religious zeal has corrupted the academy and it's "science." I'm personally totally open to either Christian interpretation of the Genesis creation story. And unlike Bill, I really enjoy discussing the issue. It just has no effect on my faith in Christ. We know that God is not a deceiver. If you lived in Noah's or Moses' time, how would you describe to your kin the concept of millions or billions of years? Come on Bill, your opinion is too valuable to keep to yourself! Light that fire my brother!  | ||
| Reepicheep |
 | ||
| Blake |
Jeff (Hootowl), Have you considered the currently popular scientific understanding that the laws of physics, namely general relativity, do not hold near the moment of the Big Bang, and that there was an inflationary period where the universe expanded at a rate far exceeding the speed of light? Well then... If Michio Kaku and other theoretical physicists have come to understand that physical/material existence accords with the idea of a simulation, and if God is the author/creator who spoke the simulation into being/motion, why would God be subject to the limits of His own simulation, and why would the simulation initial conditions set by God need to obey the limits governing the simulation? For example, when I create a physical simulation via computer code, I can set the initial conditions however I choose. If there were an AI observer confined as part of the simulation, the appearance of great spans of time in history would seem obvious, but would be dead wrong. Why would God implement existence in such a way? Why do we implement our physical simulations in that way? When we run simulations via supercomputers and massively parallel computer networks, we start simulations not at t=0 (at the Big Bang), but at a time, t, relevant to the purpose of our simulation, and with initial conditions set accordingly. Why wouldn't God do the same? So if Michio Kaku and others are right about the nature of our existence being a type of gloriously magnificent simulation, then trusting the literal word of God, it's author, becomes a scientifically tenable view. Every simulation requires an author. The good ones leave comments in their coding describing the intent and purpose of it all, and also any changes made to it over time. This guy seems so proud of his "proof" that that necessity of an author of the grand simulation seems to have been lost on him, or maybe he's just willing to allow that discussion to arise on its own, else he be shunned by his peers and the establishment academy: | ||
| Pwnzor |
The whole old earth teaching is all based on disproving the Creation story. Agreed. My only point, admittedly moot, is that a day being measured in 24 hours, a single revolution around the sun, is a machination of man. If the biblical "day" is 24 hours, days, weeks, years, eons... doesn't matter to me. To me, they are segments of time, period. | ||
| Reepicheep |
That's why I don't join these discussions. I believe God uses metaphors, and that the old earth theory doesn't disprove the bible. I think both sides are wrong about (ironically) exactly the same thing, and both have reached contradictory conclusions as a result. I'm not really interested in the conclusions of either, as I think both base assumptions are wrong. Nothing personal to either, its your business what you believe, and I won't judge a young earth creationist much worse than I will judge a catrostrophic near term anthropogenic global warmer. And I don't know what to think about the quantum theory multi-verse folks... that seems by far a stranger theory than the other two. The irony to me is that creationists claim the young earth proves God, and it doesn't. Then the old earth types claim the old earth disproves God, which it doesn't. At most, it just disproves a tedious little straw man small god manufactured by men. If God is real, and I believe he is, we as humans lack the ability to observe him in several critical dimensions we know (the full scale of time and the full scale of space), and no doubt many more that it hasn't even occurred to us that we may be missing. So all I can say with confidence is that any God that can be proved or disproved based only on things we as humans can observe and understand, is a make believe little small god we have created. Now do you see why I don't participate in these discussions? It doesn't win friends, influence people, and it's not very kind. | ||
| Reepicheep |
And along those lines, I think Metaphors are a method by which God can translate a multidimensional truth into something that can be shared with beings of more narrow abilities in perception. So to that degree, I think the metaphors of the bible are even more true than the facts of the bible. It's like Jeremy Clarkson trying to explain a turbocharger.
Pretty much spot on to a non engineer / non mechanic. Much more accurate then trying to explain to them all sorts of stoichiometric truths they have no framework to grasp. | ||
| Torquehd |
Bill, What makes you think both sides are wrong? And, do you think anything about the Creation story is a metaphor or are you referring to something else? Please share, that's what a forum is for. No, I don't think a young earth proves the existence of God. I think only God can prove His own existence. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. Different conclusions can, and clearly are, drawn from evidence. The old earth theory doesn't disprove God, but it is used as evidence against what is recorded in Genesis. To the point that it has been accepted beyond a shadow of doubt, and folks like me who believe that Genesis ch 1 means exactly what it says, are laughed at for basing our beliefs on the Bible. I don't know how many kids go to college as Christians and come back home as atheists, but I know for a fact that it happens. And I know that the teaching of evolution and the billion year old earth as fact has a lot to do with it. | ||
| Blake |
Here's that guy who "proves" that reality is a simulation: https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc He's not a very good teacher, but the math does seem correct. Very interesting. | ||
| Blake |
Crusty, "What is Truth?" - Pontius Pilate ca 33 AD Pilot was either mocking Jesus, or more charitably being rhetorical, just like many people are today concerning the very same question and it's philosophical and theological repercussions. So, how curious are you? Did Jesus ever offer an answer to that question? "... if you will abide in my word, ... then you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Believe it. |
